Hang him!

Johnatone said:

So what do you suggest? Pacifism? Yeah, that's really smart. Sit back and refuse to defend ourselves. Let's see how long the U.S. lasts with that attitude. Dumbass.

Don't start none, won't be none

Foofoo said:

u guys after hes hanged we have to quarter him and put his remains on london bridge

Which London Bridge? The old one (now in Arizona) or the new one? :)

Ed said:

Don't start none, won't be none

Switzerland is commonly held to be the most neutral country on the planet, yet during WW2 the Germans had plans to invade it. The Germans only decided against an invasion after the Swiss finally decided to mobilise their army.

Having the world's most powerful military/most plentiful nuclear arms stock in the universe would be enough of a deterrant for invasion I'd think.

The Nazis were actually planning to launch a surprise attack on the U.S. but Japans bombing of Pearl Harbor changed all that.

Gokuma said:

Saddam was a CIA operative so let's hang the entire CIA while we're at it.

Say what?

EDIT: Sorry for the double post.

Johnatone said:
Pacifism? Yeah, that's really smart. Sit back and refuse to defend ourselves.

"Terrorism" (specifically, striking at civilian targets or other targets that are not otherwise arranged for war) does not need a very complex infrastructure. It's much more like espionage or assassination than warfare. If you strike militarily you destroy armies, guerrilla bands, towns, or economies, and these can't really threaten the US itself. The objective of the military deployment and activity in the middle east (Afghanistan, Iraq) is not to counter terrorism, in any case.

Anyway, I'd suggest not calling others a dumbass when you've got nothing insightful to add or say yourself; there are many ways to express you disagree thoroughly without sounding like a loud or inarticulate partisan zealot.

After all, war is terrorism.

baronofhell said:

Say what?

EDIT: Sorry for the double post.

United Press International has interviewed almost a dozen former U.S. diplomats, British scholars and former U.S. intelligence officials to piece together the following account. The CIA declined to comment on the report.

While many have thought that Saddam first became involved with U.S. intelligence agencies at the start of the September 1980 Iran-Iraq war, his first contacts with U.S. officials date back to 1959, when he was part of a CIA-authorized six-man squad tasked with assassinating then Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2849.htm

I have now added that website to my favorites list. Seems like a good source for real news.

myk said:

After all, war is terrorism.

No, war is a tool, and like all tools, it has a proper use and an improper use. Using it to fight terrorism and oust nuclear arms stockpiling dictators is a useful use of that tool as far as I'm concerened. I'm not trying to sound like an asshole, but I'd rather not be killed because my country refuses to fight for the freedom of the world, since the rest of the world would rather dick around with the U.N., an organization that is using under the table deals and backdoor politics to create a one world union of socialism and, ultimately, tyranny. A comment like 'it is sure not done by force' shows a lack of intelligence IMO. If the people of the U.S. had used that theory [and they did dick around with it for a while] during WWII, the Nazis would rule the world right now.

Speaking of World War II, you all speak of war crimes, but seem to forget events like the firebombing of Dresden, Germany, the mass slaughter of a civilian population whose casulties were higher than that of the two bombs dropped on Japan. Or the bombing of civilian populations when the U.S. embasy was bombed during the Clinton administration. Now that I think about it, Clinton failed to kill Osama when he had the chance. But God forbid we say anything about the Dem's precious Clinton.

The bottom line is, I'm so sick of all these people who have let the leftist media brainwash them into thinking that everything the Republicans and Bush do is evil. I'm not saying the Republicans are infallible, they are, but nobody wants to look at the bottom line: we are winning the war, we are doing very well, the casualty rate is low, the Iraqi people will be able to take over in 12-18 months, and your children and their children's children will be safer because we stood up and took action against tyranny and terrorism. As far as insurgents go, there have always been insurgents after wars. And should we pull out of Iraq? Kind of like we pulled out of Germany, Japan, Korea, et cetera? Oh wait, we're still there.

No, diplomacy is not the way. Not until we win the war. And we will if we STAY THE COURSE.

This message was brought to you by the Republican party.

ROFL

Seriously, I haven't read a bigger load of bullshit in my life.

Johnatone said:

I'm not saying the Republicans are infallible, they are,

Soooo what exactly are you trying to say here

Johnatone said:

No, war is a tool, and like all tools, it has a proper use and an improper use.

Lets pretend for a second, that like you say, war is a tool at our disposal for peace and justice, and it has a proper and improper use. It's proper use died a long time ago. I'm not even sure why your still there (I'm from Canada). I keep hearing people are dying in Afghanistan on the news. This war hasn't been successful, and from my prospective, we should have pulled out a long time ago.

Tell me, how many people have died? People stand valiantly to protect they're presidents ideals, but what happens when that president is gone? Are you going to hop trains, or stick to your beliefs that you should still be there. Seriously, this war has lost any righteousness it once had. You went to Afghanistan to find Saddam Hussein, and his stash of nuclear weapons. Lo and behold, there was no stash, but since he was a terrorist, he's going to be executed. Great, your objective has pretty much been done.

But no, Instead you decide that you should get involved in Israeli problems, and say "While were here, Lets create 'peace' in everything within a 200 mile radius". From what I've seen, All that has gotten was more insurgents, and maybe a land agreement between Pakistan and Israel (unsure if correct). Go home.

-Warning- -This Post may or may not be correct, Any correction is advised and welcomed. Also This post contains mostly my opinion. So don't freak out.-

Johnatone said:

If the people of the U.S. had used that theory [and they did dick around with it for a while] during WWII, the Soviets would've ruled Europe.

Fixed

Aside from that, nazi germany was actively engaged in open agressive conquest. Iraq wasn't. How can you possibly make this analogy?

harbringer said:

-Warning- -This Post may or may not be correct, Any correction is advised and welcomed. Also This post contains mostly my opinion. So don't freak out.-

Please tell me this post wasn't serious. If it is you have absolutely no understanding about the politics, nay, even the GEOGRAPHY of the Middle East.

For starters:

Saddam Hussein was the dictator of Iraq, not Afghanistan.

The U.S. has been heavily involved with Isreal since its inception. We supply them with weapons, equipment, training, you name it. Remarkably, the U.S. had minimal direct involvement with the recent Isreal-Hizbollah conflict, in which European powers had greater roles.

Isreal invaded Lebanon. Isreal currently is occupying Palestinean territory. Isreal is located over A THOUSAND MILES west of Pakistan.

And that is just the tip of the iceberg. Please at least look at a map next time before you make a fool of yourself.

Actually, I knew I was way off base with my facts except I wasn't sure where. That was why I wanted anyone to correct me as much as possible. More or less, my geography is way off, but I'm not exactly taught it as a separate class, or are we particularity taught about the recent wars. So if this is the tip of the ice berg, I'm asking, please correct me. Although we have talked about the war, it mostly consists of "This war should be over already." And besides, I tried remembering everything off by heart, so I knew I would be wrong, as I tend to mix fact parts. It's a bad second nature I'm trying to get rid of.

EDIT: Oh and Thanks Dr.Zin for corrections :D

Johnatone said some funny shit.

Jihadists are going to mow you and your family down with machine guns in your local shopping mall. And it'll all be Bill Clinton's fault.

harbringer said:

Actually, I knew I was way off base with my facts except I wasn't sure where. That was why I wanted anyone to correct me as much as possible. More or less, my geography is way off, but I'm not exactly taught it as a separate class, or are we particularity taught about the recent wars. So if this is the tip of the ice berg, I'm asking, please correct me. Although we have talked about the war, it mostly consists of "This war should be over already." And besides, I tried remembering everything off by heart, so I knew I would be wrong, as I tend to mix fact parts. It's a bad second nature I'm trying to get rid of.

EDIT: Oh and Thanks Dr.Zin for corrections :D

The entire Middle East situation has its roots in the partitioning of the former Ottoman Empire by the British at the end of World War I. Bascially they made arbitrary boundaries which split ethnic groups by colonial (and later national) borders and forced people who hated each other to be part of the same government.

Isreal was formed out of Palestine as reparations to the Jews who had survived the Nazi holocaust. Obviously the Palestineans were not happy being kick out of their homeland to make way for this nation. For a time both Isreal and Palestine coexisted, but a series of wars led to the Isreali occupation of all Palestinean territories.

The U.S. has always supported Isreal as it gives them a strategic foothold in the region of one of the largest oil reserves in the world.

Afghanistan was invaded by the Soviet Union in the 80's in an attempt to absorb it, much like all of the other-stans out there. The U.S. funded and trained Islamic resistance fighters there under the command of a Saudi named Osama bin Laden. Over the years this group evolved into the terrorist organization known as Al-Quaida, which masterminded the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

A coalition led by the U.S. (which included Canada), overthrew the puppet theocracy ruling Afghanistan and tried to root out Al-Quaida forces, but poor planning and organization allowed most of its members to flee the country, including bin Laden.

Iraq is a perfect example of how the British fucked up. It is composed of three groups that hate each other; the Kurds, the Sunni Arabs, and the Shia Arabs. Making mincemeat out of eachother is the national pastime. Saddam Hussein's psychopathic regime was the only government that could keep these three sides from massacreing each other.

In 2003 Bush and his moronic adivsors get the idea that they should invade Iraq. They say are looking for WMD's but what they really want to do is secure more oil reserves for U.S. interests, scare the shit out of Iran, and keep a large force ready to protect the unstable Saudi Arabian regime in case of a coup. The Saudis supply a huge amount of oil to western interests, but the monarchy there has allowed the clergy to run amock, threatening their own power and breeding terrorists.

What Bush and Co. forgot is that Iraq will implode without a authoritarian ruler. Once the U.S. "liberates" Iraq all of the old hatreds emerge again and the there is blood all over the streets.

Right now a slow, inexorable slide into full scale civil war is happening in Iraq. The problem with the U.S. withdrawing troops right now is that U.S. military force is the only thing preventing total anarchy. Without U.S. muscle ready to fuck up anyone who tries to overthrow them, the current Iraqi government would tumble like a house of cards. Basically you get instant civil war, and possibly genocide.

Thank you Dr.Zin :D

Johnatone said:

we are winning the war, we are doing very well, the casualty rate is low, the Iraqi people will be able to take over in 12-18 months, and your children and their children's children will be safer because we stood up and took action against tyranny and terrorism.

This would've been funny if it wasn't scary to see that there are people who believe such nonsense.

A brief history of the Middle East crisis, by Dr. Zin. Well done. I'd like to add that the only way Saddam maintained such a stable government was by commiting genocide on the non-Sunnis and keeping everyone else under a tight regime. It's debatable weather his regime or the new way is better really. The way the regime change happened though was all wrong. First off, I don't think we should really have the authority to tell other nations what type of government they should have. Secondly, this is costing billions of US dollars and thousands of American lives to "save" a country and in the mean time we've killed thousands of them. Third, we've done this for all the wrong reasons. The administration said we were doing it to stop terrorism and free the country from evil, but in reality it was (like Zin said) to secure oil interests and keep us in bed with the (very rich) Saudis. Iraq has no connections to 9/11 or any other attacks on US/European soil. Saudi Arabia on the other hand, while their government isn't responsible really, has many many connections. If the US government were really trying to combat terrorism, they would NOT be invading Iraq.

Terrorism is actually the US's chief export.